Posted on 12/14/2024 5:30:47 AM PST by tired&retired
I am providing the Civil Liability case against Nifong as an example of what all the J6'rs, Trump, Navarro, Bannon, and anyone damaged by Lawfare should go after their persecutors. The can also go after the individual FBI agents, DA's, Judges, ....
All J6'rs should file a class action suit for damages.
Here is an example in the Nifong case.
Judge allows Duke lacrosse lawsuit to go forward
Published March 31, 2011
RALEIGH, N.C. – Three former Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape five years ago can pursue a lawsuit against the ex-county prosecutor and police investigators who handled their case, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge James Beaty said in his decision that the players can pursue claims such as malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence and fabrication of false evidence. He dismissed several other accusations, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Richard Emery, an attorney for one of the former players, Reade Seligmann, said they are prepared to vigorously pursue the case.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-allows-duke-lacrosse-lawsuit-to-go-forward/
Per the article above.
“The civil lawsuit filed in 2007 claims that Nifong and the investigators knowingly and intentionally concealed critical DNA evidence and produced a misleading DNA report. It calls the criminal case against the players “one of the most chilling episodes of premeditated police, prosecutorial and scientific misconduct in modern American history.”
Among the people cited in the lawsuit are former Durham city police chief Steven Chalmers, police investigators Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb. Brian Meehan — the director of DNA Security Inc., which conducted the DNA testing that proved key to unraveling the case — is also named in the suit, as is the lab. The case does not name accuser Crystal Mangum.”
“The Durham police investigators who handled the lacrosse case, Duke University and Duke President Richard Brodhead are among those who still face claims in those cases moving forward. Duke and Broadhead face claims that they abused a confidential relationship and common law obstruction of justice.
Duke spokesman Mike Schoenfeld said the university will vigorously defend the case.”
Note: I think Duke paid the guys $20 million.
Per Nifong’s Wikipedia page
Sued by players
On October 5, 2007, Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Nifong engineered a wide-ranging conspiracy to frame the players. Also named in the suit were the lab that handled the DNA work, the city of Durham, the city’s former police chief, the deputy police chief, the two police detectives who handled the case and five other police department employees. The players sought unspecified damages, and wanted to place the Durham Police Department under court supervision for 10 years, claiming the actions of the police department pose “a substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the City of Durham.”
According to the suit, Nifong’s sole motive was to win support for his reelection bid; the suit alleges that Nifong told his campaign manager that the case would provide “’millions of dollars’ in free advertising.” This allegation is confirmed by The New York Times, and by an interview with Nifong’s campaign manager. Nifong asked the state attorney general’s office and the Administrative Office of the Courts to pay his legal fees and help defend him, but both offices refused on the grounds that Nifong’s actions involved “fraud, corruption (and) malice.”
A settlement was reached in 2014 in which Nifong made a $1,000 donation and the city of Durham made a $50,000 donation to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission.
Bankruptcy filing On January 15, 2008, Nifong filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He listed assets of almost $244,000 and liabilities of over $180.3 million, virtually all of which derived from six $30 million “unsecured nonpriority claims”, one for each of the six members of the 2005–06 Duke lacrosse team suing Nifong, among others.
While the bankruptcy filing automatically delayed the civil suit against him, it may not protect Nifong from civil liability for his actions in the case. Unsecured creditors can still pursue claims against someone filing for bankruptcy if the debt was incurred through “willful and malicious injury” to them.
Seligmann’s attorney, noted Triangle lawyer David Rudolf, said that the players intend to pursue such a claim.
According to at least one bankruptcy law expert, Nifong’s bankruptcy filing was a tacit admission that he does not have the resources to defend himself against the players’ civil suit, and is trying to protect what assets he is allowed to protect under the law. On March 11, 2008, the Bankruptcy Administrator recommended that Nifong’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case be dismissed or converted to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case because Nifong earned income above the requirement set forth in the means test to be eligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.
However, the Bankruptcy Court ultimately held that Nifong was eligible to be a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and granted him a bankruptcy discharge on June 4, 2008. Later that same year, Judge William L. Stocks lifted the automatic stay imposed by Nifong’s bankruptcy filing, and announced that the plaintiffs could pursue their lawsuit.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-allows-duke-lacrosse-lawsuit-to-go-forward/
This is far bigger than Watergate and would take a lot of popcorn to make it through the discovery phase of it.
If they get pardons, they cannot plead the fifth to protect themselves in the civil trial. It’s deal making time with Whistleblowers...
Let the battle begin.
Meanwhile Trump is being sued by that s..t bag weasel Stephanopoulos for defamation. Unbelievable that his suit has legs and Trump must do a deposition.
Can a person who has been pardoned still be held liable for the same offense in a civil court?
“accepting, for example, a presidential pardon, is considered an admission of guilt.
If a person were to accept such a pardon, can they then still be held liable in a civil court for the same offense they were pardoned for? It would seem that the act of accepting the pardon could then be used as evidence in such a trial.”
Or, for that matter, be prosecuted by another jurisdiction- pardons only work within the jurisdiction that issued them.
In a common law jurisdiction, the pardon cannot be used as evidence
Nor, for that matter, can a criminal conviction.
This is partly because the elements that need to be proved for the civil wrong won’t correspond to the elements of the crime. But mostly, because it just isn’t allowed.
A pardon also does not relieve a party of civil contempt sanctions (i.e. contempt sanctions that can be terminated upon compliance by the person held in contempt of court with a court order) even though it may relieve a party of criminal contempt sanctions (a court imposed punishment for disrespectful conduct in the presence of a judge or a court sanction for violating a court order that cannot be purged by compliance with the court order).
I would not agree that statement regarding admission of guilt in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) (cited in the answer linked in the question) is still good law on that point, at least in most common law jurisdictions. This is probably best regarded a non-binding dicta rather than a binding precedent.
The majority modern position is that a grant of clemency is not dependent upon being accepted by the person to whom it is granted. See, e.g., Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 306 P.3d 592, 599 (Or. 2013).
Even to the extent it involves an imputation of guilt, it does not have “collateral estoppel” effect because it is not based upon litigation resolved on the basis of facts and evidence presented to a tribunal.
And. since a pardon is generally granted by a person without personal knowledge of the facts, it is also not relevant evidence of whether the act was committed or not.
A Presidential pardon also does not bar ethics board sanctions for the same underlying conduct as the conduct pardoned.
Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against attorney. The Court of Appeals ruled that sanctions could not be imposed on attorney following presidential pardon for underlying conduct, 662 A.2d 867, and rehearing en banc was granted. The Court of Appeals, Schwelb, J., held that: (1) presidential pardon setting aside attorney’s convictions on charges arising from his false testimony to three congressional committees did not nullify Court of Appeals’ authority to impose professional discipline, and (2) attorney’s conduct warranted public censure.
In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6 (D.C. App. 1997) (official synopsis).
Some of the confusion arises from the fact that a pardon of someone who has been convicted of a crime does not itself mean that a person was not guilty, something that is conclusively presumed following a conviction, and moots litigation to overturn the conviction that has been pardoned, thus preventing a court exoneration of the judicial guilt determination.
Effects of Pardon
ART.36
NOTES:
Pardon by the President does not restore the right to public office or suffrage except when both are expressly restored in the pardon. Nor does it exempt one from civil liability or from payment of civil indemnity
Limitations to President’s power to pardon:
- can be exercised only after final judgment
- does not extend to cases of impeachment
- does not extinguish civil liability – only criminal liability
General Rule: Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.
Exceptions:
1. if the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is life imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does not remove the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification.
2. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the President is to precisely restore the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election to a post (mayor) but before the date fixed by law for assuming office to enable him to assume the position in deference to the popular will
I thought Trump was suing Stephanopoulos, as Stephanopoulos continued to say that Trump was guilty of Rape when the charge was not rape. That wacky lady that accused Trump of sex in the store’s dressing room.
The problem is that “government” people are just not forced to pay anything from personal assets....it’s gonna be on the Taxpayers to be forced to pay for their Treason. BILLIONS, in the end, and they walk away with Pensions, Benefits, etc.
Trump is suing ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation. Here’s what to know about his claim.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-suing-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-defamation/
Former President Donald Trump on Monday sued ABC, ABC News and host George Stephanopoulos, claiming comments made by Stephanopoulos during a recent interview were defamatory.
In the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Nancy Mace, a South Carolina Republican, about the two juries that awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll a combined $88.3 million in damages stemming from her claim that Trump sexually abused her decades ago and committed defamation in denying the attack.
What did Stephanopoulos say?
During a March 10 interview with Mace, Stephanopoulos said, “Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape,” among other references to Trump being “found liable for rape.”
What is Trump alleging in his lawsuit?
In Trump’s complaint, he accuses Stephanopoulos of acting “with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth,” and claims that Stephanopoulos “knows that these statements are patently and demonstrably false.”
In order to prove defamation of a public figure, Trump must prove not just that the statement was incorrect, but that Stephanopoulos met the heightened standard of actual malice, showing that he had knowledge the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Trump has to prove actual malice by “clear and convincing evidence.” He also must show that Stephanopoulos harmed his reputation.
The individuals are liable in the Civil case. While the government may also have a liability, it does not exclude the individual.
Nifong was acting for the County of Durham as District Attorney. He was sued personally. The same was true for the police.
A presidential pardon is a right granted to the President of the United States by the U.S. Constitution to forgive a person for a crime, or to excuse a person convicted of a crime from punishment.
https://www.thoughtco.com/presidential-pardons-legal-guidelines-4070815
The president’s power to pardon is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Key Takeaways
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution grants the President of the United States the power to pardon any person convicted for or accused of federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.
The president may not pardon persons convicted for or accused of violating state or local laws.
Through the power of “commutation of sentence,” the president may reduce or completely eliminate the prison sentences being served by persons convicted of federal crimes.
While he or she is not required to follow them, recommendations on all applications for presidential pardons must be prepared and submitted to the president by the U.S. Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice.
Historically, the courts have interpreted the Constitution as giving the president virtually unlimited power to issue pardons to individuals or groups. However, presidents can only grant pardons for violations of federal laws. In addition, a presidential pardon only provides immunity from federal prosecution. It does provide protection from civil lawsuits.
The trouble there is if the trial needs to be brought in the DC district, there is no jury you can empanel which would find find any culpability on the part of a government actor against a perceived “right winger.” Additionally, the federal jurists are similarly compromised. Any lawsuits would have to be filed in a less hostile federal district, if that is possible.
“Meanwhile Trump is being sued by that s..t bag weasel Stephanopoulos for defamation.”
How could you possibly defame that little weasel?
Federal Agents Who Violate Individual Rights Can Be Sued For Damages, Supreme Court Rules
Setting an important precedent for law enforcement accountability and religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court last month sided with three Muslim men who say they were forced onto the No-Fly List when they refused to becomes informants for the FBI. With the ruling unanimous, Tanzin v. Tanvir reaffirms the principle that individuals can sue federal agents for violating their rights.
Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who were approached by the FBI to spy on their communities. When the men refused to collaborate, they soon found themselves unable to fly. That came with a heavy cost. The men were effectively barred from visiting family members abroad, while Tanvir was forced to quit his job as a trucker.
“To be sure, there may be policy reasons why Congress may wish to shield Government employees from personal liability, and Congress is free to do so. But there are no constitutional reasons why we must do so in its stead,” the justice added. “We cannot manufacture a new presumption now and retroactively impose it on a Congress that acted 27 years ago.”
Though Tanvir and the other men can now proceed with their lawsuit, they could soon encounter another procedural roadblock. In a footnote, Thomas noted that the FBI agents are “entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense when sued in their individual capacities for money damages under RFRA.” Found nowhere in the Constitution and created whole-cloth by the Supreme Court, qualified immunity shields government employees from any legal liability, unless they infringed on someone’s “clearly established” rights. Since only a handful of federal courts have heard claims for damages under RFRA, it’s quite possible that Tanvir could still lose his case on the grounds that his rights weren’t “clearly established.”
Nevertheless, the decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir may signal a new receptiveness among the court to hold government officials accountable. Last month, the Supreme Court denied qualified immunity to Texas prison guards who kept an inmate in cells “teeming with human waste,” allowing the man’s Eighth Amendment lawsuit to continue. This rejection of qualified immunity was the first such denial in more than 15 years by the Supreme Court. (Curiously, Thomas was the only justice who dissented, and he did not explain his reasoning.)
That same month, the High Court held oral argument in Brownback v. King, which hinges on whether the government can create a new form of immunity for police brutality cases. This government accountability case centers around James King, who was brutally beaten by police officers in broad daylight and has been fighting for years to get his day in court.
“The Supreme Court has provided its full-throated endorsement of damages as a necessary and historic mechanism for constitutional accountability,” said Scott Bullock, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, which is representing King. “In doing so, the court also reiterated its support for the foundational principles of this country, such as that damages can be awarded to check the government’s power and that it is Congress’ job to engage in policy making. The court’s job is to interpret the law, not to do policy.”
Indeed!
See post 13
He registered as a conscientious objector and participated in anti-war protests during the Vietnam War.
The civil liability case against Nifong was in Federal Court.
Typical Rat.
Likewise, with the CURRENT composition of the USSC, there are only two Constitutionally-focused Justices in place (Thomas, and Alito). The rest do as they're told.
Correct, my error, the s bag is being sued. Interesting that Trump has to appear by the S bad does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.